Military Review

Vulcan rocket - a rival reusable Falcon 9 v1.1R rocket Elon Mask

58
ULA Corporation (United Launch Alliance) (USA), one of the most famous developers and manufacturers of space technology in the world, the joint venture Boeing and Lockheed Martin, for about 2 years, has been developing the Vulcan launch system Make the output of satellites cheaper and more accessible. It is assumed that the system will seriously compete with the reusable Falcon 9v1.1R rocket (R from the English. Reusable, reused (reused) Elon Mask).


Instead of returning the entire first stage, ULA engineers offer to return only its engines. The reuse of rocket parts is a key component of the Vulcan. In ULA, reuse is NOT in the soft landing of ALL of the first stage. Instead, it is proposed to return only a small, but the most expensive part of the stage - the engines, it is easier and cheaper. One of the leaders of the ULA on this occasion said the following: "It is not always the most difficult thing in a rocket is the most expensive."

Before the Elon Mask launches on the market, ULA was a monopolist and charged the launch price for the full program without embarrassment. With the advent of Mask, the price of launches decreased significantly (from $ 110 million to $ 60 million) and part of the launches from ULA passed to Mask, and a substantial part. For fun, it can be said that the development of the Vulcan rocket takes place under the motto of Star Wars: "The Empire Strikes Back." I read that work on the creation of reusable rockets began in ULA a long time ago, almost at the beginning of 2000's, but then stopped. They were then monopolists and it didn’t make any sense to reduce the launch cost. We must pay tribute to the Mask - drew the attention of the whole World to reusable rockets, and how!

Before continuing the story about the Vulcan rocket, I want to remind you, for those who are not in the subject, the characteristics of the first (returnable) stage to the Falcon rocket 9v1.1R and the return technology. In the first stage, the 9 Merlin 1D engines are installed, with increased thrust and specific impulse. A new type of engine received the ability to throttle from 100% to 70% and, possibly, even lower. Changed the location of the engines: instead of three rows of three engines used layout with the central engine and the location of the rest around the circumference. The central engine is also installed slightly lower than the rest. The scheme is called Octaweb, it simplifies the overall device and the process of assembling the engine compartment of the first stage. The total thrust of the engines is 5885 kN at sea level and increases to 6672 kN in vacuum, the specific impulse at sea level is 282 s, in vacuum 311 c. The nominal run time of the first stage is 180. The height of the first stage is 45,7 m, the dry mass of the stage v1.1 is around 23 t and around 26 t for (R) -modification. The mass of the placed fuel is 395 700 kg, of which 276 600 kg is liquid oxygen and 119 100 kg is kerosene. Mass of one engine Merlin 1D: 450-490 kg. The mass of 9 engines is approximately 4,5 tons, it is 17,3% of the DRY mass of the first stage. The technology and return path of the Falcon 9 v1.1R is shown in Figure. 1.


Fig. 1 Flight path.

From the diagram it is clear that for the landing of the first stage on the folding supports it is necessary to turn it engines forward, i.e. turn around its axis, and for this, the Falcon 9 v1.1 needs to be supplemented with the equipment of turn and landing systems, which was done:

1. The first stage is equipped with four folding landing racks used for soft landing. The total weight of the racks reaches 2100 kg (this is almost half the weight of all 9 engines for which all this was started).
2. Navigation equipment is installed to exit the runway to the landing point (you must get exactly to the site in the OCEAN);
3. Three of the nine engines are designed for braking and received an ignition system for restarting;
4. At the top of the first stage, foldable lattice titanium steering wheels are installed to stabilize the rotation and improve controllability during the descent stage, especially at the time when the engines are turned off. The titanium handlebars are slightly longer and heavier than their aluminum predecessors, they increase the ability to control the stage, withstand high temperatures without the need for an ablative coating and can be used an unlimited number of times without inter-flight maintenance.
5. In the upper part of the step, an orientation system is installed - a set of gas nozzles that use the energy of compressed nitrogen to control the position of the step in space before the release of trellis controls. A block is located on both sides of the tread, each with 4 nozzles directed forward, backward, sideways and downward. Downward nozzles are used before three Merlin engines are launched during stage deceleration maneuvers, the produced pulse lowers the fuel into the lower part of the tanks, where it is caught by the engine pumps. The titanium grids and the gas nozzle block of the orientation system (flagged) before and after landing are shown in photo 2. The paint under the nozzles did not peel off because the energy of compressed nitrogen was used.


Fig. 2

For landing, SpaceX leases TWO spaceports — the Air Force base at Cape Canaveral (LC-13) on the east (Atlantic) coast and Vandenberg base (SLC-4-West) on the west (Pacific) coast. Accordingly, offshore platforms are used by TWO, each of which is a converted barge. The engines and GPS equipment installed on them make it possible to deliver them to the necessary point and hold it, creating a stable landing ground, but the weather affects the possibility of a trouble-free landing. SpaceX has two such platforms, because the width of the platforms does not allow them to pass the Panama Canal from Vandenberg Base to Cape Canaveral.

The engine descent of the entire first stage reduces the MAXIMUM payload of the launch vehicle by 30 – 40%. This is due to the need to reserve a significant amount of fuel for braking and landing, as well as additional weight of landing equipment (landing supports, lattice steering wheels, a reactive control system, etc.). Let me remind you that rockets do not always start with 100% load, incomplete loading is almost always and averages from 10 to 17%.

Let us return to the story about the technology of returning engines Vulcan rocket. The landing technique is shown in the figure 3.


Fig. 3.

The technology is called Sensible, Modular, Autonomous Return Technology (SMART - smart, quick-witted). Marching and steering engines will be caught in the air, this is the most expensive part of the first stage. The ULA plan is for the lower part of the rocket to disconnect after completion of the first stage. Then, using inflatable thermal protection, it enters the atmosphere. Parachutes will open, the helicopter will pick up the engine block and land with it in any place convenient for this - neither landing space centers, nor floating barges are needed. In SMART technology, additional landing equipment that reduces the payload mass consists of only a parachute and inflatable thermal protection. Helicopter pick-up of parachute loads, a common technology in aviation and astronautics. About 2 million such operations have been completed in the world, and they continue to be carried out.

Vulcan rocket - a rival reusable Falcon 9 v1.1R rocket Elon Mask

Ris.4


Fig. 5

Manufactured by ULA Delta 4 and Atlas 5 (Atlas 5 still flies on our RD-180 and will fly at least until 2019) modular, Vulcan will also be modular with different sizes of head fairings or with additional starting accelerators, which will allow if necessary increase productivity. Modularity distinguishes ULA from other players in the US market (our Angara is also modular): SpaceX has the usual Falcon 9 and the planned heavy version, Arianespace can offer only Vega and Soyuz, but there are no gradations. The volcano will be available in 12 medium to heavy versions. The rocket will be available with head fairings of either four or five meters in diameter. In the first option, you can put up to four solid-fuel boosters, in the second - up to six. In the latter case, the rocket will become an analogue of a heavy modification of the Delta 4.

The first launch of Vulcan is scheduled for 2019 year. It will be implemented either with the help of two Blue Origin BE-4 engines on liquefied gas, or with a pair of more traditional kerosene Aerojet Rocketdyne AR-1. The creation process is quite expensive, so the rocket will be developed in several stages. We are talking about billions: specific figures are not called, but historically it is known that the development of a new rocket engine costs 1 billion dollars, and the start of work on a new rocket is approximately 2 billion.

Sources:
https://geektimes.ru/post/248980/ и другие источники.
Author:
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vard
    Vard 16 January 2018 05: 46
    +2
    The cost of launching the Union ... 40 million ... Then you can not continue ...
    1. dedboroded72
      dedboroded72 16 January 2018 06: 31
      11
      Yes, only the Union’s carrying capacity is 8 tons (from the cosmodrome at the equator, in French Guiana - 9 tons), and the Falcon’s carrying capacity is 22,8 tons, that is, this rocket is a competitor to Proton, with a maximum load of 23 tons and a launch cost of 70-80 million ...
      1. Vard
        Vard 16 January 2018 06: 47
        +1
        In a geostationary orbit, the mass is seven tons ... There is nothing to be proud of ... And the cost of launches do not take into account the five billion dollars spent on the development of the project ...
        1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
          Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 9 February 2018 22: 57
          0
          Respected! Every resident of the Russian Federation knows that trillions of dollars have been spent on developing the Falcon 9. I am sure that you also know this, just made an annoying typo.
      2. Vikxnumx
        Vikxnumx 16 January 2018 07: 32
        +3
        Minus 30-40% of the load ...
        Many satellites weigh 12-14 tons?
        Or is it enough 8 tons of carrying capacity?
      3. SpaceCom
        SpaceCom 16 January 2018 08: 36
        +4
        If we talk about the return version of Falcon, then apparently he still did not lift anything heavier than the “Union” load ... No.
        And the cost of the Union can be reduced
      4. axxenm
        axxenm 16 January 2018 10: 12
        10
        Quote: dedboroded72
        and the Falcon’s carrying capacity is 22,8 tons, that is, this missile is a competitor to Proton, with a maximum GPU of 23 tons at the NOO.

        never did the falcon launch mon 22 tons - as always some kind of PR fantasies ...
        .
        Moreover - from the Falcons PN published in the list of launches, there is not a single more than 9600 kg per DOE.
        This is apparently the space x PR agents, they make a tricky extrapolation based on a 6761 kg payload on a GPO launched, naturally, in the correct one-time version, Falcon 9.
        Although here strangeness is claimed (and aggressively advertised) of 8300 kg per GPO (in a one-time version), but 6761 were actually launched, and more recently it only happened - on July 5, 2017.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 January 2018 17: 44
          +2
          Because satellites are not made specifically for max. Falcon, and according to the needs of the customer. And so Falcon-9 allowed 5200 kg for GPO with return.
          Ie X-30 (40%) = 5200
          0,6 (0,7x) = 5200
      5. Cannonball
        Cannonball 16 January 2018 20: 22
        0
        And these 22,8 tons, Falcon at least once at the DOE displayed?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 January 2018 23: 59
          0
          No, but he brought 5200 kg to GPO with a return, which is only 300 kg less than the declared maximum.
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 17 January 2018 21: 27
            +1
            LEO and GPO are two different things. The “Proton” at the GPO, though without returning (and this is not an end in itself) for more than 7 tons, can lead from the parallel of Baikonur. And Baikonur is not Florida. The brainchild of the Mask in our conditions will greatly lose in carrying capacity.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 17 January 2018 22: 07
              0
              Falcon-9 has 8,3 tons of GPO if no return. In our conditions it will not change much, by 5-10 percent.
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 18 January 2018 19: 34
                0
                25-30%, to be precise, that is, it turns out - 5,8 - 6,2 tons. Checkmate.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 18 January 2018 21: 57
                  0
                  What do you think?
                  8,3-35% = 5,395
                  1. Cannonball
                    Cannonball 19 January 2018 19: 49
                    +1
                    Where did you get 35%?
                    It was about 25-30%. Read and read carefully.
    2. Evdokim
      Evdokim 16 January 2018 06: 31
      +4
      Everything is just like ours, in the United States, import substitution is in full swing. Two companies compete who is cheaper. hi
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 16 January 2018 07: 12
      0
      To lower the engines from the spent stage into the ocean. Is the game worth the candle? winked
      1. Evdokim
        Evdokim 16 January 2018 08: 25
        +1
        Quote: siberalt
        Is it worth it?

        Probably worth it if they can be used a second time. Although I sooooo doubt it. And will they (engines) have a motor resource at least? After the flight for the next flight. After all, RD is not a diesel engine that went through the order, you can go further. hi
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 16 January 2018 05: 54
    +2
    Mask has at least one normally implemented project. *?
    1. dedboroded72
      dedboroded72 16 January 2018 06: 35
      +8

      this option will not work? winked
      1. SpaceCom
        SpaceCom 16 January 2018 09: 02
        +6
        The option is very controversial!
        Firstly, the question is the cost of developing Falcon. Even loyal geektimes.ru estimates only its own investment Mask at 1 billion. And government investment was several times higher.
        Secondly, the Angara is certainly unfinished, but the savings with a modular approach does not raise questions - each module has its own cost and the less, the cheaper. But the reduction in cost with repeated use requires taking into account too many factors and is therefore controversial.
        And finally, I personally have doubts about the declared cost of the Falcon ... Mask himself, for example, only calls the price of the head fairing $ 5 million ... And this is 10% of the entire launch ... Isn't it a bit much?
        1. vlad007
          16 January 2018 10: 49
          +5
          Quote: SpaceCom
          Firstly, the question is the cost of developing Falcon. Even loyal geektimes.ru estimates only Musk’s own investments in 1 billion.

          Disposable Falcon versions are successfully used and no one doubts their profitability, the number of COMMERCIAL launches is growing, and this is the main indicator, Musk is conquering the market, and the reusable version is primarily Musk’s personal ambitions - he wants to show everyone that he is cool.
          The reusable technology Mask, in my opinion, does not hold water and will not last long, but all the media are excited about it and blame Roskosmos for lagging behind. Roscosmos seemed to agree that it was lagging behind and began to develop the Crown with landing bearings, etc.

          In addition, there is a project of a reusable hangar with wings.
          1. SpaceCom
            SpaceCom 17 January 2018 15: 46
            +3
            There is no desire to argue about the true reasons for commercial success. Although, in my opinion, the corruption component is clearly visible.
            But there are huge doubts about both the Crown and Lake Baikal. For the implementation of the Crown, now-existing engines are required. And the implementation of Baikal with a rotary subsonic wing with large stabilizers ... And this is in the presence of a hypersonic flight section! Oh well...
            1. vlad007
              17 January 2018 16: 12
              +2
              Quote: SpaceCom
              There is no desire to argue about the true reasons for commercial success. Although, in my opinion, the corruption component is clearly visible.

              I agree, the budget is not only being sawed by us, but we are shouted about it more than anywhere else, and for any reason - I saw the Crimean Bridge, the Olympics, etc.!
            2. Cannonball
              Cannonball 17 January 2018 21: 36
              0
              A few years ago, the design of the return stage of Baikal was being worked out, not only with a rotary, but also an integral wing.
          2. Lex.
            Lex. 19 January 2018 20: 03
            0
            So the project still needs to be implemented
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 16 January 2018 20: 35
        +4
        It won’t work. The “Angara" has not yet had commercial launches. This is the first.
        Secondly, the cost of "Angara" includes the development of the FAMILY of launch vehicles, rocket engines, ground launch complex, launch pad, infrastructure, bench testing, etc.
        Musk received a lot from NASA for nothing, or almost nothing.
        Thirdly, now you can not compare the cost of a piece of “Hangar” with the serial “Falcon”. When the series goes, then compare.
        1. onix757
          onix757 16 January 2018 20: 58
          +5
          The “Angara" has not yet had commercial launches.

          and it’s unlikely to be already. Roskosmos shies from project to project, and at the exit there is a hole with a guaranteed result
          the cost of the "Angara" includes the development of the FAMILY of launch vehicles, rocket engines, ground launch complex, launch pad, infrastructure, bench testing, etc.

          Falcon is also a family rocket, with all the inherent gadgets for a new rocket.
          Musk received a lot from NASA for nothing or practically for nothing

          Roscosmos also inherited from the USSR a powerful industry, but it turned out to be not a horse feed.
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 17 January 2018 21: 38
            0
            Modules of the second heavy "Angara" are already in the assembly shop.
          2. Cannonball
            Cannonball 17 January 2018 21: 39
            +1
            Missiles both in the USSR and in the Russian Federation did the same enterprises. This is not the inheritance of the USSR, this is the inheritance of these enterprises themselves, their property.
  3. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 16 January 2018 06: 15
    +1
    a normal project is cheap and cheerful.
  4. axxenm
    axxenm 16 January 2018 10: 21
    +2
    "... will seriously compete with the Falcon 9v1.1R reusable rocket"
    Even the authors who are interested in this “reusable” hype have neither the audacity nor the stupidity to declare a reusable Falcon rocket, only the “reusable” first stage ...
    .
    Anyone who writes about the "reusable Falcon rocket" is either a ridiculous and stupid confusion, or an abominable vile manipulator (junk whore or voluntary bad guy)
    1. vlad007
      16 January 2018 10: 57
      0
      Quote: axxenm
      Anyone who writes about the "reusable Falcon rocket"

      Article about the Vulcan Rocket.
      1. axxenm
        axxenm 16 January 2018 11: 18
        0
        Quote: vlad007
        Quote: axxenm
        Anyone who writes about the "reusable Falcon rocket"

        Article about the Vulcan Rocket.


        know how to read, dear?
        I quoted precisely this article about the volcano rocket and it says (quote): "reusable Falcon rocket" - which I reacted to.

        if a reusable Falcon rocket were mentioned in a flower breeding article, my reaction would be the same
    2. vlad007
      16 January 2018 11: 16
      0
      Quote: axxenm
      Anyone who writes about the "reusable Falcon rocket" is either a ridiculous and stupid confusion, or an abominable vile manipulator (junk whore or voluntary bad guy)

      In this presentation video, both the first and second stage are reusable. Look to the end !!!!
      1. axxenm
        axxenm 16 January 2018 11: 29
        +2
        Quote: vlad007
        Quote: axxenm
        Anyone who writes about the "reusable Falcon rocket" is either a ridiculous and stupid confusion, or an abominable vile manipulator (junk whore or voluntary bad guy)

        In this presentation video, both the first and second stage are reusable. Look to the end !!!!

        Download more unscientific fiction (star wars, etc.) ..
        And look to the end !!!!
        1. vlad007
          16 January 2018 14: 05
          +1
          Quote: axxenm
          Download more unscientific fiction (star wars, etc.) ..

          This video is for you, you were perplexed about the "reusable rocket", I had to show you. You can’t write serious comments, so you decided to get to the terminology?
          1. axxenm
            axxenm 16 January 2018 15: 15
            +3
            Quote: vlad007
            Quote: axxenm
            Download more unscientific fiction (star wars, etc.) ..

            This video is for you,

            No, this video is not for me - I don’t watch unscientific fiction ...
            Therefore, I advised you - if you like fantasy PR ravings from 2011 (which you slip under the guise of a video about a real "reusable" rocket) they will plunge deeper into the world of starships, beam swords and other death stars, widely represented in the cinema, before persisting in palm off mediocre video crafts as arguments.
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 16 January 2018 10: 50
    +2
    It's a shame to tears! crying After all, the Americans sleep my project .... stibri! angry True, in my project, the engine block should be lowered not only by parachutes (this is only one option), but also by ... (oh, silence! Otherwise the last mericosa sleep ... limonit!) ... 2-th option is more "managed"! What is being done, good people? request Even thoughts can not be left unattended, immediately soprut! belay
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 16 January 2018 14: 31
      +2
      And this option not only occurred to you. I would not be surprised if this Vulcan used technologies stolen at the time from the crumbling USSR. And the project was called [already deleted let go of his wife]
  6. Normal ok
    Normal ok 16 January 2018 13: 29
    0
    I will add that the USA also came up with the idea of ​​using engines taken out of service with ICBMs. The carrier is based on the retired American ICBM LGM-118 Peacekeeper. "Also" because Russia, together with Ukraine, before 2015, had already carried out 22 successful missile launches of the Dnieper (in fact, RS-20 conversion ICBMs). Why am I writing, such launches are very cheap and as long as the old ICBMs that have been taken out of service are in stock, this is a serious competition for other players in the market.
    PySy Of course this is a niche option, because the load is limited. But to launch satellites, that’s it.
  7. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 16 January 2018 14: 22
    +3
    Nothing new! All this was long ago considered in the USSR, including helicopter engine pickup. And recognized as unnecessary. The technology of engine production is such that even if the serialization of production is reduced, the marriage immediately increases. And to stop engine production is to lose competence.
    1. vlad007
      16 January 2018 15: 32
      0
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Nothing new! All this was long ago considered in the USSR, including helicopter engine pickup. And recognized as unnecessary.


      And what you need? Reusable crown on landing poles?
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 16 January 2018 16: 55
      +1
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Nothing new!

      What about the technology of HAZARD L. Kaiser? wink
  8. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 16 January 2018 14: 25
    +1
    Quote: SpaceCom
    And the cost of the Union can be reduced

    The cost of the Union is a direct consequence of its layout. All the same, four engines of the first stage will be in every way more expensive than one engine of four times more thrust.
    1. lance
      lance 16 January 2018 15: 57
      +2
      there is no limit to stupidity? the launch of any carrier rf today cheaper than the Falcon. and no need to fool around, if you remove the fans to "warm your hands" the cost will decrease by another 20% (the same as in the military industrial complex).
      1. axxenm
        axxenm 16 January 2018 16: 27
        +4
        Quote: Lance
        if you remove the lovers of "warm your hands" the cost will decrease by another 20% (the same as in the military-industrial complex).

        not at 20 but at least at 50!
      2. Petr1968
        Petr1968 16 January 2018 16: 30
        +3
        Quote: Lance
        the launch of any carrier rf today cheaper than the Falcon.

        Then why more falcon launches? They must die out in a fierce world of competition.
        1. vlad007
          16 January 2018 17: 13
          +2
          Quote: Petr1968
          Then why more falcon launches?

          So that there are launches it is necessary that there is something to run.
        2. lance
          lance 16 January 2018 18: 31
          0
          what kind of competition are you talking about if funding is 80% through the government? including all kinds of sanctions and pressure on vassals. Russia remains only that they themselves are no longer able to send but necessary.
          1. Petr1968
            Petr1968 17 January 2018 09: 50
            0
            Quote: Lance
            Russia remains only that they themselves are no longer able to send but necessary.

            What remains that they themselves cannot send ... ???? Conspiracy theory next ?? In fact, almost all launches are foreign satellites of the very vassals, as you call.
  9. demiurg
    demiurg 17 January 2018 14: 48
    +1
    I remember in the discussion of one of the materials of Opus I suggested that planting an engine only is much more cost-effective than the whole stage. Serious people convinced me of this.
    Now I will move an even more seditious idea. The missile consists of a tank, a returning engine block, and of PN.
    We are creating aircraft of maximum size, I suppose that if you neglect the economy, common sense and other unnecessary things, then it is realistic to get more than three hundred tons at an altitude of 15 km and a speed of about one and a half max. We start the tank, engine and monitors from this aircraft. This will give more than 4 tons if launched from the equator to NOU at a ridiculous price. Five-ton pieces if you can collect anything, up to the ship for flying to the moon.
    .
  10. SpaceCom
    SpaceCom 18 January 2018 17: 30
    0
    Quote: Cannonball
    Missiles both in the USSR and in the Russian Federation did the same enterprises. This is not the inheritance of the USSR, this is the inheritance of these enterprises themselves, their property.

    Exactly!!! Yuzhmash did not - there is no Zenith, it suddenly became clear that Russia does not have its own lightweight carriers. Yes, and the majority of those who were in service with the BR come from there request
    1. Cannonball
      Cannonball 18 January 2018 19: 42
      0
      What are you saying? belay
      “Rokot”, “Angara A1,2”, “Soyuz-2.1V” - are these not carriers of the light class?
      And the “Zenith” has never belonged to the light class; this is a middle-class launch vehicle. In addition, Zenit is partly a Russian missile - 70% of components, including mid-flight engines and Russian-made booster blocks.
      1. SpaceCom
        SpaceCom 20 January 2018 05: 54
        0
        I say what I know. Can you tell me when the Angara and Union 2.1v were developed? But they were developed due to the lack of light media. And in particular, because the Rokot developed on the basis of the UR-100 is also limited by the reserves of its "parent".
        The fact that Zenit is of the middle class, I know (it was necessary to put an end to the proposal), as well as the fact that 70% of it has Russian components. Only this does not change anything - there is no Zenith!
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 20 January 2018 09: 27
          0
          You are wrong again. “Angara” began to develop when the base UR-100 was enough for more than 100 launches. There are still a lot of them.
          In addition to the “Rokot” in the 90s, light arrows included “Arrows”, “Starts”, “Cosmos”, “Cyclones”, and launch vehicles based on marine ICBMs.
          They made a light “Angara” to replace it, in order to reduce the nomenclature and reduce the cost of production and operation.
          1. Jurkovs
            Jurkovs 24 January 2018 07: 27
            0
            It is not necessary to turn a conceptual error that laid the light-class missile into a dignity, or justify it as an URM.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 24 January 2018 20: 15
              0
              Did you understand what you wrote? belay
              There cannot be a light class rocket to be an URM. This URM can be part of a light class missile. But for the light class, large energy-mass characteristics are not necessary, therefore, the URM-1 was created taking into account the needs of the light class LV.
              No one argues that this idea with URMs is not optimal from the point of view of EMX, but it can significantly optimize the production cycle of LVs of any class with a significant reduction in the range of components and materials.
              And most importantly - the Customer is quite happy with such a scheme.